Captains Quarter
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004989.php
July 18, 2005
Tancredo Fouls The Water (Updated)
We have enough problems fighting the war on terror in the measured, strategic method used by the Bush and Blair administrations without Republican Congressmen recommending the bombing of sites held sacred by Muslims across the political spectrum. Yet today, Tom Tancredo (R-CO) suggested that a nuclear attack on an American city could result in a bombing run on Mecca:
A Colorado congressman told a radio show host that the U.S. could "take out" Islamic holy sites if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked the country with nuclear weapons.
Rep. Tom Tancredo made his remarks Friday on WFLA-AM in Orlando, Fla. His spokesman stressed he was only speaking hypothetically. ...
"Well, what if you said something like — if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.
"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.
"Yeah," Tancredo responded.
The congressman later said he was "just throwing out some ideas" and that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response."
I think the "ultimate response" to Tancredo's apolcalyptic fantasy is that we don't bomb civilians in response to terrorist attacks, no matter how seductive such a response might seem. The idea that the US would retaliate in such a manner should be repulsive to any rational person, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum. The war on terror targets the terrorists and the governments which fund and/or shelter them, not the civilians who happen to live there.
Besides, who is Tom Tancredo to make these threats anyway? He doesn't have anything to do with the military chain of command or the national security systems that would make those kinds of recommendations. He certainly doesn't speak for the President, who has to make the final determination in loosing those weapons on any target. Tancredo does, however, lend a false sense of credibility to such threats in international circles, thanks to his position as an elected Republican official.
The GOP needs to remind Tancredo of the wisdom of silence in some issues.
UPDATE: Yes, we dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 -- but we were at war with Japan and both cities had significant military production facilities. We also gave them plenty of warning on both and an opportunity to surrender each time.
We, however, are not at war with Saudi Arabia, and Mecca has little or no military significance. Furthermore, Tancredo doesn't want to nuke it for military advantage, but simply as an extortionate threat. That's little different than what al-Qaeda does.
And Truck, we bombed Saddam's military facilities in open warfare, fully declared. We didn't aim at civilians. If you can't tell the difference between that an a nuclear attack, that's simply pathetic.
Roving Theologian
http://www.rovingtheologian.com/index.php/weblog/more/tom_tancredo_in_the_lead_for_stupidest_thing_said_this_year/ Monday, July 18, 2005
Tom Tancredo - In the lead for Stupidest thing said this year?
In case you didn’ hear, one of our Colorado Congressmen, Tom Tancredo (R) implied, in a “hypotetical scenario” that maybe we should have plans to bomb Mecca should a U.S. city be nuked. No, really…
I didn’t get clued into this today until I checked Hugh Hewitt’s website and found out what Rep. Tancredo said. Beyond dumb. Just plain stupidly silly. Tom, here are a few major things to consider:
1) Mecca is a holy site to Muslims in a way that no Christian city can be or should be. The closest connection is the orthodox Jewish appoach to Jerusalem and the land of Palestine. But that is a tiny minority within worldwide Judaism. The Haj to Mecca is one of the five pillars of Isalm to all of the world’s 1 Billion Muslims.
2) The United States military includes thousands of Muslims soldiers. Are you seriously suggesting they should be ordered to bomb one of their two most holy sites?
3) Such a bombing would be a declaration of war against all 1 billion Muslims, and I dare say, that it would be a war that could not end. You think the Crusades make the Muslims mad (which occured almost a millenium ago), you ain’t see nothing yet!
4) Such an action would do nothing to inhibit the radical elements in Islam. You must remember that for the Muslim, the will of God is absolute, so should Mecca be destroyed, it would be seen as the will of Allah, and cast as part of Allah’s plan to reinspire all Muslims to bring all Infidels under the rule of Islam.
Now, as an evangelical Christian, I do not share the squishy concept of all religions are the same. I have great respect for Islamic culture, history and even, to some degrees, theology. But, as a Christian, I believe that no one comes to God except through the Son, Jesus Christ (but that is another topic). That does not mean, and cannot mean, that I would ever accept the use of military force on Islam’s (or any faith’s) most holy sites. I suport the Global War on Terror, which is in reality, a war on the Fascists elements of Islamic extremism, but this will not help, it will only hurt, and would be an obomination to all the United States stands for.
Tom Tancredo, apologise...to the U.S. Muslim soldiers, to our allies in the Islamic world, to your party and to the nation at large. And none of this, “Sorry if my words upset you” kind of apology. Say it boldly, “I was wrong. We have no reason to ever consider such a course of action. Muslims of the world have nothing to fear from us, unless they try and impose their will by the use of terror and oppression.”
------
Better Living: Thoughts from Mark Daniels
http://markdaniels.blogspot.com/2005/07/what-was-this-congressman-thinking.html What Was This Congressman Thinking?
Hugh Hewitt rightly says that everyone who got exercised over Dick Durbin's comments comparing the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo to the actions of the Nazis under Hitler or Pol Pot's Cambodia, should also be upset with Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo. He's right! During a radio interview, Tacredo allowed himself to be enticed into speculation about bombing Muslim holy sites, such as those in Mecca.
What on earth was the congressman thinking?
No matter how hypothetical Tancredo thought his outrageous comments were, in the eyes of the world, he's an official of the US government, even if he's not in the executive branch.
If the sophisticates who lead the government in China can't understand the distinction between the branches of our government and therefore feel compelled to lecture Congress to lay off the proposed UnoCal deal, how do you suppose young Muslims who have never experienced democracy are likely to interpret Tancredo's remarks?
Like most people in the world, they'll see it as an American threatening them. It's therefore an unnecessarily provocative statement.
As Hewitt writes:
Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo's speculation about using nukes on Mecca following an act of nuclear terrorism in the United States is the most irresponsible statement any American official can make. It will be on al-Jazeera within the hour, and it will be used by jihadists against us. Such speculations send the message that we are at war with all of Islam. We are not. We are at war with a slice of Islam that is radical and violent. Statements like Tancredo's invite all of Islam to think they are our enemy.
A Colorado congressman told a radio show host that the U.S. could "take out" Islamic holy sites if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked the country with nuclear weapons.
You might want to do a poll on what the voting public of this country would expect of government if we were attack by nuclear weapons. I expect they would demand retaliation or a new government to protect us.